Vinuya v.

Romulo,

G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010

Introduction and sources of International Law

FACTS: Petitioners are all members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-stock, non-profit
organization registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, established for
the purpose of providing aid to the victims of rape by Japanese military forces in the
Philippines during the Second World War. Petitioners claim that since 1998, they have
approached the Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, requesting
assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military officers who
ordered the establishment of the "comfort women" stations in the Philippines. However,
officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the petitioners, and took the
position that the individual claims of the comfort women for compensation had already
been fully satisfied by Japan's compliance with the Peace Treaty between the
Philippines and Japan||| 

ISSUE: Whether the Executive Department committed grave abuse of discretion in not
espousing petitioner’s claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against
Japan.

RULING: No. The question whether the government should espouse claims of its
nationals against a foreign government is a foreign relations matter, the authority for
which is demonstrably committed by our Constitution not to the courts but to the political
branches. In this case, the Executive Department has determined that taking up
petitioners’ cause would be inimical to our country’s foreign policy interests, and could
disrupt our relations with Japan, thereby creating serious implications for stability in this
region. For the Court to overturn the Executive Departments determination would mean
an assessment of the foreign policy judgments by a coordinate political branch to which
authority to make that judgment has been constitutionally committed. In the international
sphere, traditionally, the only means available for individuals to bring a claim within the
international legal system has been when the individual is able to persuade a
government to bring a claim on the individuals behalf. Even then, it is not the individuals
rights that are being asserted, but rather, the states own rights. The State, therefore, is
the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is
granted, and when will it cease.
The Court fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally
reprehensible as well as legally prohibited under contemporary international
law. However, it does not automatically imply that the Philippines is under a non-
derogable obligation to prosecute international crimes. Absent the consent of the states,
an applicable treaty regime, or a directive by the Security Council, there is no non-
derogable duty to institute proceedings against Japan. Even the invocation of jus
cogens norms and erga omnes obligations will not alter this analysis. Even if we
sidestep the question of whether jus cogens norms existed in 1951, petitioners have not
deigned to show that the crimes committed by the Japanese army violated jus
cogens prohibitions at the time the Treaty of Peace was signed, or that the duty to
prosecute perpetrators of international crimes is an erga omnes obligation or has
attained the status of jus cogens.